Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Sep. 17, 1939, was Fa collaboration rather than Anti-Fa.
Maybe the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1944 could be described as Anti-Fa ...

Another thing:
In Sandra Newman’s article Why Men Rape, I found this very interesting:

Quote:

Sexual assault by soldiers in wartime also differs dramatically from army to army, and offers an interesting test case, because the disciplinary environment in which it occurs runs the gamut from deliberate encouragement of sexual violence to harsh and summary punishment of sexual violence.

Apparently, even in the midst of war, men are capable of refraining from sexual assault if they know there will be consequences

The resulting picture is very clear. At one extreme, we have the Rape of Nanjing ahead of the Second World War, where Japanese commanders actively incited soldiers to assault civilians, and 20,000 women were raped within the first month of the occupation. Meanwhile, incidents of sexual violence are historically low among Left-wing guerrilla groups; for instance, after the 12-year civil war in El Salvador, a UN Truth Commission report in 1981 found no reported cases of rapes being committed by insurgents, although sexual violence by government forces was common in the first years of the war. This is probably due both to the freedom of such groups to enact extra-legal punishments, and to their existential need to win the hearts and minds of the population.

Wartime rape also appears to change rapidly in response to directives from above. For instance, the notoriously high rate of sexual violence by the Red Army at the end of the Second World War decreased dramatically when the Soviet leadership decided it was a political problem, and instituted rules to discourage it. In the Salvadoran civil war, rapes by government soldiers steeply decreased once the US threatened to withdraw military aid if the government’s human-rights record didn’t improve.

__________________/dann"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

For example, I dislike antifa because they seek to legitimize the use of violence in suppressing views they don’t like, which is fundamentally undemocratic no matter how much you dislike the views of the people whose views they want to suppress.

There have been neo-Nazis for as long as I can remember. The traditional way of dealing with them has always been to let them have their say, then laugh at them for what they say, then write articles about what sad forces draw people to extreme ideologies. This method has always worked pretty well, keeping them at the margins of society.

For example, I dislike antifa because they seek to legitimize the use of violence in suppressing views they don’t like, which is fundamentally undemocratic no matter how much you dislike the views of the people whose views they want to suppress.

Then literally no change in history should have ever happened under your standards.

No meaningful change in history has every happened because the correct side asked the incorrect side nicely to stop.

__________________"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

Then literally no change in history should have ever happened under your standards.

Off the top of my head we've had women's suffrage, the Civil Rights amendment, end of segregation, end of prohibition against mixed race marriages, the ADA, the advancement of gay rights, and we're working on the end of prohibition of marijuana. I'm sure there are many others I've left out, but in general meaningful change can be enacted with democratic and/or diplomatic process and it's not always necessary to violate the civil rights of those who oppose progress.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

No meaningful change in history has every happened because the correct side asked the incorrect side nicely to stop.

Another false choice fallacy. There is a lot of space between "asking nicely" and violating someone's civil rights. For example the #metoo movement is wrecking the careers of many powerful people who would not have changed their behavior just by being asked nicely.

Violence is only justifiable in response to violence. When Yvette Felarca physically attacks someone who is merely standing with a sign, she becomes the oppressor. Even though her goal of "standing up to fascism" may be noble, she dirties her cause by using oppressive and regressive tactics.

And to be clear, she is not "standing up to fascism" by opposing the right of free speech.

This post needs to be stickied at the top of every page of this thread:

Well the problem is according to some that number is in the tens of millions because Anifa is linked to broader concepts of extreme left wing policies in the same way modern Nazis are linked to historical Nazis.

Modern Nazis are to Historical Nazis to the same degree that Anifa is to... Stalin during the Holodomor or Mao during the Great Leap Forward seems to be the argument. (For the record I find this comparison insane.)

It's a childish "Well you too" argument. We accuse Nazis of being... well Nazis so we have to pretend that Anifa is a directly related to Pol Pot.

Again I think the distinction between a political ideology and a political movement has to be kept clear in this discussion.

Democracy, Communism, Socialism, Anarchism... these are all political ideologies. Opinions that exist on an intellectual level and who proponents range across the entire scale as to what means they feel are appropriate to put their preferences into practice.

Nazism is a political movement. It's defined as much, if not more, by its action than by its ideologies. This is why I bristle at apologetic nonsense that frames opposition to them as a matter of free speech. The idea that opposition to Nazis is due to political ideological differences is purely ludicrous.

To put it bluntly if Nazis are a political party, rapists are a gender.

Now where Anifa falls on this sacle... well I have my opinions (for the recording annoying and at times extreme but not even in the same space-time continuum as Nazis) but that is just so much farts in the wind in a discussion such as this.

__________________"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

__________________It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtahI am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

Listen can we drop this inane idea that all stances/opinions have to stay equally valid forever and equally weighed in perpetuity? Stances and opinions are equally valid... until they prove themselves otherwise and if "Nazi" hasn't been moved to your "proved otherwise" column by now I'm afraid to ask what has been.

It's Nazis. They had their chance. They put their ideas up for debate and lost. There was a war about it. The whole world was involved. It was kind of a big deal. I think the jury is in on "Nazis." Nazism is not an idea we have to let get reintroduced to take another look at in order to appease some sort of "I'm more tolerant than you" fetish.

It's 2018. "Nazis are bad" is not a statement that should really need defending.

This is the real world not a Poly-sci class. You can put whatever spin on trying to make "Oh you're so intolerant against the Nazis!" into a negative you want, it is not gonna fly.

__________________"Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset, Se7en

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

"there are a few far-left groups that raise red flags" [timestamp 3:35]

I believe, sir, that you will find the raising of red flags to be quite common among far-left groups indeed.

__________________"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

Pointing out problematic violence on the left is not the same as saying left wing violence is worse that right-wing violence. Politically motivated violence is wrong regardless of your agreement or disagreement with the politics.

Fox news is effed up, and they do exagerate left wing violence and downplay right wing violence. But the left wing violence they do point to is real and it should not be excused by the existence of right wing violence.

Tu quoque is still a fallacy.

I’m going to leave you with another video. Vice is a great network in my opinion, and Hate Thy Neighbor is a show that’s both funny and informative.

Okay then go make this argument in a discussion where one side isn't literal Nazis.

I am.

The story from the OP described an effed up teenager who killed his girlfriend’s parents. He does not represent any “side”, and his actions as reprehensible as they are do not justify antifa, Yvette Felarca, or anyone else attacking demonstrators who do not agree with them.

Proponents of antifa would have you believe they are defending us from literal Nazis by showing up at right-wing gatherings and picking fights. They're not. Inviting Milo Yiannopoulos or even Richard Spencer to a speaking event doesn’t make one a Nazi, nor does standing up for their rights to free speech. Frankly, trying to shut them down especially by violently attacking people promotes them, and they appreciate it.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Jesus Christ if we ever have a zombie uprising we're gonna have zombie apologist, so many people see "Tolerance" as a game were whoever is the most tolerant of the most insanity wins.

That’s actually a theme in both the Walking Dead and Z Nation series.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Listen can we drop this inane idea that all stances/opinions have to stay equally valid forever and equally weighed in perpetuity?

I am not and never have said this. Nazis are bad. They always have been bad. When I see a Nazi I feel a mixture of pity and disgust, and I don't feel the need to consider their ideas.

However, I am not allowed to attack them just for being Nazis, nor should I be.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

It's Nazis. They had their chance. They put their ideas up for debate and lost. There was a war about it. The whole world was involved. It was kind of a big deal. I think the jury is in on "Nazis." Nazism is not an idea we have to let get reintroduced to take another look at in order to appease some sort of "I'm more tolerant than you" fetish.

I completely agree.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

It's 2018. "Nazis are bad" is not a statement that should really need defending.

I am not aware of anyone who defends Nazis who is not a Nazi. If we defend their right to free speech, it is in the defense of everyone's right to free speech, and we do so knowing and acknowledging their speech is repulsive.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

This is the real world not a Poly-sci class. You can put whatever spin on trying to make "Oh you're so intolerant against the Nazis!" into a negative you want, it is not gonna fly.

It’s okay to be intolerant towards Nazis, just as long as you don’t violate their rights doing it.

Modern Nazis are to Historical Nazis to the same degree that Anifa is to... Stalin during the Holodomor or Mao during the Great Leap Forward seems to be the argument. (For the record I find this comparison insane.)

It's a childish "Well you too" argument. We accuse Nazis of being... well Nazis so we have to pretend that Anifa is a directly related to Pol Pot.

Neo-Nazis are proud of Hitler, they read Mein Kampf, they have his portrait on the wall. (Except for the polo-shirt guys, who pretend that they don't for PR reasons.)
I have actually met Anti-Fas who admired Stalin, but they are very few and very far between. Pol Pot? Never!

__________________/dann"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Neo-Nazis are proud of Hitler, they read Mein Kampf, they have his portrait on the wall. (Except for the polo-shirt guys, who pretend that they don't for PR reasons.)
I have actually met Anti-Fas who admired Stalin, but they are very few and very far between. Pol Pot? Never!

I've heard that Polo shirts are evidence of nazi sympathies but don't understand the how and why.

__________________"When a man who is honestly mistaken, hears the truth, he will either cease being mistaken or cease being honest." - Anonymous

The cornerstone of the look was the white polo shirt, and nothing about that uniform was accidental. Before Charlottesville, Andrew Anglin, founder of the Daily Stormer (the American neo-Nazi and white supremacist website), issued an edict: “We need to be extremely conscious of what we look like, and how we present ourselves.”

It really doesn't harm it that Trump was often wearing polo shirts - for "conventional" reasons, but he *is* an idol of the Alt-Right.

__________________OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcarehttp://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

Sep. 17, 1939, was Fa collaboration rather than Anti-Fa.
Maybe the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1944 could be described as Anti-Fa ...

__________________/dann"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx

Yes, but as usual, completely incorrectly. In 1938 after the annexation of the Sudetenland by Nazi Germany the USSR offered Britain and France an alliance against Germany to contain the fascist threat. Britain and France refused, and still being enamoured with fascism and its potential to exterminate the anti-capitalist left in Europe, went on to sign pacts with Nazi Germany instead. After which the USSR, unable to take on Nazi Germany by itself, found itself forced to sign its own non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany.

So let's recall the sequence of events:
1. Nazi Germany invades Czechoslovakia.
2. USSR offers Britain and France an anti-fascist alliance directed against Nazi Germany.
3. Britain and France refuse and sign pacts with Nazi Germany instead. And not even reluctantly, just as enthusiastically as they had been with Nazism and its anti-communist potential ever since it took over Germany and Italy.
4. The USSR reluctantly signs its own non-aggression pact with Germany because it's unable to take on Germany by itself without Britain and France.

So who are the "Fa collaborators" in this story? Obviously it's the USSR if you believe the "Anti-Stalinist" left. It is almost a defining feature of the so-called "Anti-Stalinist" left that they will happily misrepresent or even falsify the history of the USSR to please the Western liberal bourgeoisie.

__________________"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Yes, but as usual, completely incorrectly. In 1938 after the annexation of the Sudetenland by Nazi Germany the USSR offered Britain and France an alliance against Germany to contain the fascist threat. Britain and France refused, and still being enamoured with fascism and its potential to exterminate the anti-capitalist left in Europe, went on to sign pacts with Nazi Germany instead. After which the USSR, unable to take on Nazi Germany by itself, found itself forced to sign its own non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany.

So let's recall the sequence of events:
1. Nazi Germany invades Czechoslovakia.
2. USSR offers Britain and France an anti-fascist alliance directed against Nazi Germany.
3. Britain and France refuse and sign pacts with Nazi Germany instead. And not even reluctantly, just as enthusiastically as they had been with Nazism and its anti-communist potential ever since it took over Germany and Italy.
4. The USSR reluctantly signs its own non-aggression pact with Germany because it's unable to take on Germany by itself without Britain and France.

So who are the "Fa collaborators" in this story? Obviously it's the USSR if you believe the "Anti-Stalinist" left. It is almost a defining feature of the so-called "Anti-Stalinist" left that they will happily misrepresent or even falsify the history of the USSR to please the Western liberal bourgeoisie.

Non-aggression pact between Hitler and Stalin, was it?

Millions of Poles and Finns bitterly laugh.

__________________"these autistics preferred to back a woman who aligns herself with white supremacy." These autistics.

Pacts between Britain, France and Hitler, was it? Right after refusing an offer from the USSR to have an anti-Nazi alliance, was it? Because they were still all enthusiastic and enamoured with the anti-communist potential of fascist political systems, was it?

Millions of Jews, homosexuals, leftists, Jehova's witnesses, Roma, etc etc bitterly laugh. Or rather they don't laugh anymore, having been exterminated and all that.

Pretty sure neither Britain nor France had expected such collateral damage when supporting the extermination of the European anti-capitalist left by fascist regimes. Must have been a real PR disaster, but luckily we have liberal bourgeois history writing and their "Anti-Stalinist" lackeys who are always happy to divert our attention to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact whilst conveniently leaving out any context of that pact and how and why it came about.

__________________"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

You'd think, but people are very committed to looking for excuses to blame "both sides" when it clearly isn't a "both sides" situation.

Is that how you see it? From my point of view it really seems to me as though some people on the left want to deflect criticism by saying that what they’re doing wrong doesn’t rise to the level of Nazism.

To me that seems like an amazingly stupid argument.

Blaming both sides? It’s not a contest where the one who commits the least amount of wrong gets off scott free. Everyone should be blamed for the wrong that they do to the degree that they do it. This is why the killers in Virginia and Charlottesville will face life in prison, and why Yvette Felarca is only facing civil fines.

Originally Posted by Cleon

Nazis actually kill innocent people - present tense. You don't need to go back to Treblinka. The OP's incident is only one of many. This is a murderous movement, both by ideology and actions.

Antifas, as far as I'm aware, are not killing anyone.

Until that changes, any attempt at a equivalence between Nazis and antifas should be contemptuously rejected.

Except nobody here is saying they are equivalent.

Nobody here is defending Nazis, and the only ones claiming that criticism of antifa is the same as equating them to Nazis is you and about three others in this thread. All of whom make the claim as an act of deflection for legitimate criticism.

Really, if your best defense is “we’re not as bad as the Nazis”, then you really should stop and think about it.

Pacts between Britain, France and Hitler, was it? Right after refusing an offer from the USSR to have an anti-Nazi alliance, was it? Because they were still all enthusiastic and enamoured with the anti-communist potential of fascist political systems, was it?

Millions of Jews, homosexuals, leftists, Jehova's witnesses, Roma, etc etc bitterly laugh. Or rather they don't laugh anymore, having been exterminated and all that.

Pretty sure neither Britain nor France had expected such collateral damage when supporting the extermination of the European anti-capitalist left by fascist regimes. Must have been a real PR disaster, but luckily we have liberal bourgeois history writing and their "Anti-Stalinist" lackeys who are always happy to divert our attention to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact whilst conveniently leaving out any context of that pact and how and why it came about.

Oh golly, nothing to say about the Poles and Finns. By the way? Hitler was a rank amateur compared to your boy Stalin when it came to genocide, in fact, Hitler could not have done it without Stalin and the USSR.

There aint’t no Genocidal maniac like a communist genocidal maniac because a communist genocidalmaniac don’t stop!

__________________"these autistics preferred to back a woman who aligns herself with white supremacy." These autistics.

Push comes to shove, getting invaded by the USSR is probably the best thing that ever happened to the Polish working class so far. More importantly, why should I care if a section of the working class gets its government replaced from a fascist military dictatorship to Soviet-style state socialism?

__________________"Ideas are also weapons." - Subcomandante Marcos
"We must devastate the avenues where the wealthy live." - Lucy Parsons
"Let us therefore trust the eternal Spirit which destroys and annihilates only because it is the unfathomable and eternal source of all life. The passion for destruction is a creative passion, too!" - Mikhail Bakunin

Antifa believes it is pursuing the opposite of authoritarianism. Many of its activists oppose the very notion of a centralized state. But in the name of protecting the vulnerable, antifascists have granted themselves the authority to decide which Americans may publicly assemble and which may not. That authority rests on no democratic foundation. Unlike the politicians they revile, the men and women of antifa cannot be voted out of office. Generally, they don’t even disclose their names.

Antifa’s perceived legitimacy is inversely correlated with the government’s. Which is why, in the Trump era, the movement is growing like never before. As the president derides and subverts liberal-democratic norms, progressives face a choice. They can recommit to the rules of fair play, and try to limit the president’s corrosive effect, though they will often fail. Or they can, in revulsion or fear or righteous rage, try to deny racists and Trump supporters their political rights. From Middlebury to Berkeley to Portland, the latter approach is on the rise, especially among young people.

Revulsion, fear, and rage are understandable. But one thing is clear. The people preventing Republicans from safely assembling on the streets of Portland may consider themselves fierce opponents of the authoritarianism growing on the American right. In truth, however, they are its unlikeliest allies.

They are equal in that nobody really wants or needs either group to exist. In fact now that the media cycle has been over for months, nobody really knows they exist at all. Bunch of dorks playing grown-up. PETA could kick their butts. (another game idea?)

They are equal in that nobody really wants or needs either group to exist. In fact now that the media cycle has been over for months, nobody really knows they exist at all. Bunch of dorks playing grown-up. PETA could kick their butts. (another game idea?)

Great article a few posts up ^^

I think there is a fundamental difference. Anticapitalism has a point - there is a lot of unfairness in the capitalist system, however it is probably better than most alternatives, and can be improved without breaking it. Being an angry young idiot and thinking that rioting will help is one thing.

Communism, at least as a theory, is promoting an alternative that might seem attractive, even though in practice it is unworkable and leads tyranny.

Nazism has no redeeming features - unless you are thinking about Hugo Boss's fashion sense.

Far-Right Extremists Chased Through London by Women Dressed as Badgers

Quote:

But in the event, both groups were upstaged by agitators of a different stripe. Decked out from head to toe in black and white, the group that won the day were campaigning neither for race war nor ethnic equality, but an end to the government's cull on badgers.

Quote:

Led by Queen guitarist Brian May, protesters in fancy dress demanded an end to the government's cull of badgers, brought in to stop the spread of bovine tuberculosis.

They chanted: "Smash the cull! Smash the BNP!"

__________________OECD healthcare spending
Expenditure on healthcarehttp://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm
link is 2015 data (2013 Data below):
UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending
US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

I think there is a fundamental difference. Anticapitalism has a point - there is a lot of unfairness in the capitalist system, however it is probably better than most alternatives, and can be improved without breaking it. Being an angry young idiot and thinking that rioting will help is one thing.

Communism, at least as a theory, is promoting an alternative that might seem attractive, even though in practice it is unworkable and leads tyranny.

Nazism has no redeeming features - unless you are thinking about Hugo Boss's fashion sense.

slightly off topic i know but the badger activists are another group that dont know when to stop

the badger population atm is huge. its bounced back loads in the last couple of decades im always seeing them run over at the side of the road (morbid way of counting the population but they wouldnt be getting run over in numbers if there wasnt many of them)

i work in forestry and the number of badgers is putting stress on all the other wildlife.

when was the last time you saw a hedgehog? i used to find them all the time growing up

its just another case of ideologues. i just wish everyone would stop joining so many gangs

slightly off topic i know but the badger activists are another group that dont know when to stop

the badger population atm is huge. its bounced back loads in the last couple of decades im always seeing them run over at the side of the road (morbid way of counting the population but they wouldnt be getting run over in numbers if there wasnt many of them)

i work in forestry and the number of badgers is putting stress on all the other wildlife.

when was the last time you saw a hedgehog? i used to find them all the time growing up

its just another case of ideologues. i just wish everyone would stop joining so many gangs

Start breeding thousands and thousands of dachshunds.

__________________"Such reports are usually based on the sighting of something the sighters cannot explain and that they (or someone else on their behalf) explain as representing an interstellar spaceship-often by saying "But what else can it be?" as though thier own ignorance is a decisive factor." Isaac Asimov

i think antifa are making the situation worse. they give the conservative media fuel to show moderate conservatives the "evil violence of the left".

it drives a wedge between both sides whereas before it was much easier for everyone including moderate conservatives to point and laugh at the nazis

How effective would it have been to point and laugh at the Nazis in 1939?

__________________It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtahI am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

They had people inside the Whitehouse as advisors to the President! That's far from fringe.

Quote:

antifa and the far left are lumping in moderate conservatives and trump supporters with the nazi and the far right.

I disagree that Moderate Conservatives are getting lumped in. Trump supporters are yes, though in some ways they only have themselves to blame there. Trump's Administration is highly nationalistic, it's anti-immigrant, anti-minority, misogynistic, and it's racist. Supporting such an Administration means supporting those things too. You can't support Trump and then insulate yourself from the worst bits of his Administration by saying, "Well I don't like what he's doing, but I support him to do it."

Quote:

they are playing into the fox and other conservative media hands and helping to create an us and them enviroment

its a self fulfilling prophecy kinda thing

It's been an "us vs them" environment since Clinton beat Bush!

Conservatives have never gotten over losing to Clinton after Reagan got all but 2 states in 1980.

All that is happening now is that the Left is returning a portion of the crap that the Right and Far right have been dealing out in the last 20 years, and they don't like it.

The Right and Far Right want to be able to spew whatever poisons they like and offend whoever they want without getting any repercussions for it.

See Free Speech isn't actually free. It comes with responsibilities, like all Rights. In this case the responsibility to accept the backlash from whatever garbage you spilled out of your mouth.

__________________It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtahI am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.